Before you paste that into ChatGPT…
Are you absolutely sure it’s safe?
Do you have a process for that...
Or are you just… hoping it makes sense?
And if a judge asked tomorrow how your firm uses AI...
Would you have a real answer?
A documented policy and workflow?
Or would it sound something like:
“Well… we’re experimenting.”
Maybe you’ve tried to ignore the whole AI thing.
Hoped it slows down.
But deep down…
You can feel it.
This isn’t going away.
And you know you can’t afford to be the last one figuring it out.
Here’s what we've found talking with dozens of attorneys and firms:
Most lawyers experimenting with AI right now are making the same 3 mistakes.
And they don’t even realize it.
Mistake #1: Treating AI like a toy instead of infrastructure.
They use it for things like summaries, drafting, reformatting.
But there’s no structure around it.
No internal guardrails or data boundaries...
There isn't a standard policy for supervision.
It’s just… a tool.
What's dangerous here isn't the existence of AI itself...
But using AI in an unstructured way for your law firm is pretty dangerous.
It's actually a liability.
Mistake #2: Confusing prompts with process.
“If I learn better prompts, I’m ahead.”
But AI isn't even about prompting.
That's just the "sexy" fun part.
The real opportunity here is to fix your workflows patched together.
Better prompts don’t fix broken workflows.
If your intake is messy...
Then AI just scales that messiness.
If your document flow is chaotic...
AI multiples that.
If your associates are unclear on policy...
It gets 10x worse with AI.
The firms winning right now aren’t writing better prompts.
They’re redesigning workflows.
As you'll come to find out, this makes a huge difference.
Mistake #3: Letting AI creep into the firm without oversight.
It starts small.
One associate using it to draft.
Another summarizing depositions.
Someone pasting client facts “just to see.”
But no one is tracking anything...
There aren't any defined boundaries.
Is anyone responsible for auditing the process and outcomes?
It feels harmless, until it isn't.
Here’s a good question to ask yourself.
If a court questioned your AI usage tomorrow…
Could you clearly explain:
• What it’s allowed to touch
• What it’s not allowed to touch
• Who reviews outputs
• How privilege is protected
• What data stays internal
Or would you be improvising?
Because right now across the profession…
That line is being drawn.
Some firms are improvising.
Others are installing structure.
The difference won’t show up today.
It’ll show up later.
You'll see obvious differences in leverage, efficiency, confidence, and risk exposure.
And you'll see who pulls ahead because of it.
We've been studying how firms are actually integrating AI behind the scenes.
Not the stuff people are talking about on their LinkedIn posts...
We're talking about the real operational changes made with AI.
And one thing is becoming obvious:
The firms who thrive this year won’t be the ones who “use AI the most.”
They’ll be the ones who control it.
We'll be reporting more of our findings in upcoming issues.
🔎 What Else We’re Seeing Behind The Scenes
Over the last few weeks, we’ve been tracking:
• Judges sanctioning AI misuse
• VC-backed firms moving faster than expected
• Hundreds of plaintiff firms admitting workflow gaps
• Associates using AI without clear supervision
• Intake systems that fall apart under automation
This is all relevant to operations.
There’s nothing theoretical here.
If you want context, browse the archive here:
Want to Be Featured?
Hit reply with the word “feature” and we’ll send you a few quick questions.
Prefer to jump the line?
Fill out the feature waitlist here:
No cost or strings attached, just spotlighting great firms.
Until next time,
-The Legal Brief